Why did Russian Prince Yuri Vladimirovich receive the nickname Dolgoruky? Yuri, the sixth son of the Grand Duke of Kyiv Vladimir Vsevolodovich Monomakh, ruled in the Rostov-Suzdal land during his father’s life. After the death of the Grand Duke of Kyiv Mstislav Vladimirovich in 1132

Why did the Grand Duke of Vladimir Vsevolod Yuryevich receive the nickname Big Nest? The Grand Duke of Vladimir Vsevolod the Big Nest (1154–1212), son of Yuri Dolgoruky, received his nickname not only for having many children (he had 8 sons and 4 daughters), but also for the fact that soon

Why did Moscow Prince Ivan I Danilovich receive the nickname Kalita? In 1328, the Moscow prince Ivan Danilovich, as a reward for pacifying the uprising in Tver against the Tatar tribute collectors (Baskaks), received from the Khan of the Golden Horde a label for the great reign of Vladimir along with

Why did the Grand Duke of Moscow Vasily II Vasilyevich receive the nickname Dark? Vasily II Vasilyevich (1415–1462), Grand Duke of Moscow from 1425, was able to inherit the throne only thanks to the support of the Moscow boyars and the Grand Duke of Lithuania Vytautas, his grandfather from

Why did Russian Prince Yuri Vladimirovich receive the nickname Dolgoruky? Yuri, the sixth son of the Grand Duke of Kyiv Vladimir Vsevolodovich Monomakh, during his father’s life ruled in the Rostov-Suzdal land. After the death of the Grand Duke of Kyiv Mstislav Vladimirovich in 1132

Svyatoslav (942–972) Grand Duke of Kiev, commander The Tale of Bygone Years dates the beginning of the independent reign of Grand Duke Svyatoslav Igorevich to 964. Short-lived, but bright and eventful, his reign was marked for Rus' at first by brilliant

Vladimir the Holy (960–1015) Grand Duke of Kiev, baptist of Rus' Prince Vladimir Svyatoslavich has an exceptional place in national history. During his reign, Christianity triumphed in Rus' and it became one of the most powerful powers

Yaroslav the Wise (980–1054) Grand Duke of Kiev, statesman and cultural figure Yaroslav, son of Prince Vladimir Svyatoslavich, respectfully called the Wise by his contemporaries, was born around 980, shortly after his father was established in Kiev. Yaroslav's mother was from Polotsk

Vladimir Monomakh (1053–1125) Grand Duke of Kiev, commander and public figure, writer The last period of state unity and power of Kievan Rus is associated with the name of Vladimir Monomakh. Vladimir, born a year before the death of his grandfather Yaroslav the Wise,

Yuri Dolgoruky (1090–1157), Grand Duke of Kiev, founder of Moscow Yuri Vladimirovich, the sixth son of the Grand Duke of Kyiv Vladimir Monomakh and his English wife Gita, went down in history as an ambiguous and contradictory personality. He spent most of his life in

YURI DOLGORUKY (?-1157), Prince of Suzdal and Grand Duke of Kiev 22 Come to me, brother, in Moscow. An invitation sent to Prince Svyatoslav Olgovich of Novgorod-Seversk in 1147. This first written mention of Moscow was preserved in the Ipatiev Chronicle. ? PSRL. – M.,

August 6 is the Day of Remembrance of the first Russian holy great martyrs, princes Boris and Gleb, who were killed by their elder brother Svyatopolk, later nicknamed the Accursed. Did Svyatopolk really kill his brothers, or is he just a victim in the bloody plan of Yaroslav the Wise? These and many other questions will be answered by an expert on the history of Russian Orthodox Church Alexey SVETOSARSKY. The event is held as part of the “Beware of History!” project, organized by the agency“RIA Novosti”, radio station “Echo of Moscow” and newspaper “Izvestia”.

Introduction: Hello, my dear respondents. Thank you for your questions. I am very glad that these historical events associated with the names of the holy noble princes and passion-bearers Boris and Gleb have aroused such keen interest. The fact is that Boris and Gleb are not only the first Russian saints, we will talk about this later, but also heroines who showed such a unique image of holiness as passion-bearing, characteristic of the tradition of Russian piety. Now let's get to the questions.

Andrey, Moscow: Why did Svyatopolk flee to Poland? Why did the Polish king support him and help the exile regain the Kiev throne?

Alexey Svetozarsky: The fact is that Svyatopolk was forced to flee to Poland, because he was faced with the very active actions of Yaroslav, who, like a banner, raised the names of the brothers killed by Svyatopolk and began the fight for the Kiev throne under the slogan of sacred revenge. That is why Svyatopolk, having been defeated in the battle of Lubich, had to flee to Poland, where he received the support of Boleslav the Brave, the Polish king, who was his father-in-law. Boleslav, an extremely active politician who fought for the Czech Republic with the German emperor, who at one time fought with Prince Vladimir, did not fail to take advantage of the situation, especially since he had every reason for this (helping a close relative). Boleslav sent the Pechenegs to Kyiv, and Yaroslav barely fought off this raid. Then Yaroslav, in alliance with Emperor Henry II, advanced to the Polish border, but failed.

In 1017, Boleslav captured Kyiv, and Yaroslav had to retreat in haste. Poles, Germans, Hungarians and Pechenegs, finding themselves in Kyiv, caused dissatisfaction with the people of Kiev with their behavior, an uprising began in the city and Boleslav left. Perhaps the uprising was provoked by Svyatopolk, who was burdened by her father-in-law’s prolonged stay in Kyiv. After this, Svyatopolk’s luck turned away; he was defeated on the Alta River in 1019. And then he ran. According to various sources, he either died from his wounds in Brest, or was killed by the Varangian Eymund from Yaroslav’s squad, or, as ours believes, ancient chronicle(“The Tale of Bygone Years”), died an evil death somewhere between Poland and Bohemia.

Vladimir, Moscow: At school, everyone learns lessons from history for themselves. What lesson can we learn from the story of Svyatopolk the Accursed?

Alexey Svetozarsky: Our ancestors already learned a lesson from the story of Svyatopolk the Accursed. The images of the princes he killed, the patrons of the princely family, and holy relatives for many years served as a bright ideal of the Gospel attitude to politics. But not only. The Russian princes perceived them as their special prayer books. Suffice it to recall the appearance of Boris and Gleb Pelgusia on the eve of the battle with the Swedes. The feat illuminated the existing order government system, based on generic principles. And the example of Svyatopolk the Accursed (similar to the biblical fratricide Cain) became a warning for other princes. The veneration of Boris and Gleb became a unifying principle for our ancestors, who were going through a period of feudal fragmentation; their relics were an all-Russian shrine, while most of the ascetics of that time were revered only locally, in certain regions and principalities.

Svetlana, Moscow: Where did the confidence come from that Svyatopolk killed Boris and Gleb? Many historians come to the conclusion that Yaroslav the Wise did it.

Alexey Svetozarsky: Based on historical sources, I cannot agree with the assumption that Boris and Gleb were killed on the initiative of Yaroslav the Wise. There is absolutely no reason for this. Moreover, Sergei Mikhailovich Solovyov, not without reason, claims that at that time Yaroslav was extremely interested in Boris remaining alive and actively acting against Svyatopolk.

Let me remind you that before Vladimir’s death, Yaroslav was in a protracted conflict with him. And after the death of his father, he faced a very strong opponent in the person of Svyatopolk. Therefore, it is natural that he hoped for a long struggle between Boris and Svyatopolk.

Marina, Moscow: Unfortunately, this was the first time I heard this name – Svyatopolk. Tell me, why do teachers pay so little attention to the history of ancient Rus', and how would this study benefit us?

Alexey Svetozarsky: In my opinion, indeed, in the school course of Russian history the study Ancient Rus' not much attention and time is given. But I believe that here a lot depends on the personality of the teacher; it is no coincidence that many of us who studied history in high school also in Soviet times, when very little space was devoted to the study of Russian history, including the history of Ancient Rus', before the Mongol period, they nevertheless know this instructive story about the first Russian saints and their insidious killer.

Undoubtedly, I agree with you that a more detailed study of the history of the pre-Mongol period benefited us, since the civilization of Kievan Rus was the basis of the civilization of three fraternal Orthodox East Slavic peoples - Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian, and those peoples who connected their historical destiny with them . It was during this period that the foundations of our mentality and many archetypes of national consciousness were formed.

Vladislav, Moscow: Was it beneficial for Svyatopolk and Yaroslav to benefit their brothers Boris and Gleb? Why then is much blame placed on Svyatopolk?

Alexey Svetozarsky: The fact is that, according to historical sources, it was Svyatopolk who carried out the fratricidal plan. Undoubtedly, Saint Boris was a very strong competitor for Yaroslav. But circumstances developed in such a way that Yaroslav acted as an avenger for his brothers in accordance with the concepts of family revenge characteristic of that time.

Yuri, Moscow: Were fratricidal feuds typical of Rus'? Is there a trend visible here?

Alexey Svetozarsky: Fratricidal feuds were characteristic, of course, not only of Ancient Rus'. It can be assumed that Svyatopolk could well be guided by the example of his neighbors - his father-in-law Borislav the Brave, who expelled his younger brothers from Poland, and even blinded one relative, and Borislav the Red, who castrated his brother in Bohemia and tried to kill another brother. The struggle for power between princes-brothers or close relatives (uncle-nephew, father-son) was characteristic of the period of feudal fragmentation.

But it is important to note something else. In Rus', the sin of unbrotherly love has always been condemned by the church and the people's consciousness. This idea is especially emphasized in such a wonderful work of ancient Russian literature as “Reading about Boris and Gleb,” the author of which is Nestor the Chronicler. This idea is constantly present in the public consciousness, and the example of Boris and Gleb, who abandoned internecine struggle for the sake of their Christian beliefs, plays an important role here. Moreover, our ancestors from among the bookish people perceived Batu’s invasion as a punishment sent from above precisely for the princely strife.

It is important to note one more point - in those days state unity It was just taking shape, so residents of other regions, representing the opposing side, were perceived almost as foreigners. In the eyes of the southerners, these were the Novgorodians, and in the eyes of the Novgorodians, the Kievans. In this, undoubtedly, the influence of the tribal system was felt.

Oleg, Moscow: Why is Svyatopolk called the son of Yaropolk in some sources, and the son of Vladimir in others?

Alexey Svetozarsky: The question of Svyatopolk’s paternity is touched upon only in one chronicle fragment, where the damned fratricide, to aggravate the negative characteristics, is called the son of two fathers. But this is more of a rhetorical device. The fact is that Svyatopolk’s mother, Greek by origin, was the widow of Yaropolk, Vladimir’s unsuccessful rival, and was the latter taken as a wife after his rival brother, that is, Yaropolk, lost. From this marriage of Vladimir with the widow of Yaropolk, Svyatopolk was born.

Michael: What is the role of Svyatopolk in history? Do you think he is a typical ruler of the period of feudal fragmentation?

Alexey Svetozarsky: I believe that Svyatopolk presented a negative example of a ruler who transgresses moral commandments on the way to the throne. Unfortunately, such phenomena were not uncommon. But in contrast to the truly bright images of Boris and Gleb, Svyatopolk looks especially negative. The fact that the tragic events unfolded in a special period of our history - at the dawn of Christianity among the first and second generations of Russian Christians, who interpreted modern events through the prism of the new evangelical teaching, also played a role.

Undoubtedly, in this coordinate system, Svyatopolk should have received the most negative assessment, as is clearly evidenced by his nickname - the Damned, like Cain. Of course, to some extent his actions are typical, as well as the actions of many other rulers of the period of feudal fragmentation. But in the struggle for the throne, he goes further than many, intending to destroy all potential rivals. Let us recall that Svyatopolk was responsible for the death of another brother, Svyatoslav, who fled from his inheritance and died somewhere in the Carpathian region.

Alexander, Moscow: How do you feel about the version according to which it is not Svyatopolk the Accursed who is actually to blame for the death of Boris, but Yaroslav the Wise, who later disguised his participation in the murder? The death of his brothers was even more beneficial to him than to Svyatopolk. One more thing. St. Petersburg University professor Osip Senkovsky, having translated “Eymund’s Saga” (“Eymund’s Strand”) into Russian, discovered there that the Varangian Eymund (who killed Boris according to the Russian version) and his squad were hired by Yaroslav the Wise. The saga tells how King Yarisleif (Yaroslav) fights with King Burisleif (Boris), and in the saga Burisleif is killed by the Varangians by order of Yarisleif. Some researchers suggest Boris under the name “Burisleif”, others - the Polish king Boleslav, whom the saga confuses with his ally Svyatopolk).

Alexey Svetozarsky: I wouldn't trust a genre like saga. Still, this is a work of a special kind, especially since the author of the question himself notes obvious contradictions here. As an analogue, I will give as an example the presentation of the story of the baptism of Prince Vladimir in another Byzantine saga - the Saga of Olaf, which differs significantly from the versions given in Russian and foreign sources (Western European, Byzantine and Arabic). And one more analogy. Turning to oral folk art in terms of studying Russian history would lead to the fact that you and I would study the history of Prince Vladimir and his era, for example, according to the Russian heroic epic, which contains many funny anachronisms, not noticed by the popular consciousness, but obvious to the historian . For example, Prince Vladimir fights the Tatar-Mongols and so on.

Svetlana, Moscow: When and, most importantly, why did Boris and Gleb become the first Russian saints and heavenly helpers of Russian princes? How was their holiness demonstrated? After all, they did not die defending Christianity and were killed by Christians, not pagans. By this time, there were already enough Russian princes who died in battles with the “filthy”, and for some reason they were not “promoted” to saints.

Alexey Svetozarsky: Boris and Gleb are not martyrs who suffered for Christ, although they were called such. But they are passion-bearers who put following the commandments of the Gospel above all earthly interests, including political ones. This is the highest ideal, its bearers are always few. Our ancestors felt this very sensitively, who soon after the painful death of the brothers began to venerate them as saints, which led to a fairly quick canonization (either in the 20s of the 11th century, or in 1072).

Another important point– the criterion for canonization was not only their selfless act, but also the numerous miracles performed at their holy relics and recorded by their contemporaries. In those days, it was the presence of miracles that was the main criterion for glorification as a saint. Due to the lack of miracles, Prince Vladimir, Princess Olga, Saint Isaiah of Rostov and some other ascetics who were distinguished by their righteous lives and had undoubted services to the church and the Christian people were not canonized for a very long time.

Among the examples of passion-bearers, one can cite the unique case of Saint Michael of Chernigov, who consciously refused to perform ritual actions at Batu’s headquarters. There were few such people; most Russian princes accepted (were forced to accept) etiquette based on pagan superstitions at the headquarters of the Mongol khans. But, nevertheless, each of them understood that, ideally, only Mikhail truly acted.

From the history of princely holiness, cases of sacrificial service are also known (it was sacrifice, and not the fact of death on the battlefield or at the enemy’s headquarters, that was considered the criterion of holiness), such princes as Mikhail Tverskoy, Georgy Vladimirsky, Vasilko Rostovsky and others. But this is a different era, although, undoubtedly, the memory of Boris and Gleb played a certain role in this.

Final word: I express my gratitude to all my correspondent interlocutors, thanks to whom I again turned to this old and instructive story that happened at the dawn of our national history and at the beginning of the history of our holiness. Thank you.

Prince of Turov (988-1015) and Grand Duke of Kiev (1015-1019) Svyatopolk Vladimirovich, known in ancient Russian historiography as Svyatopolk the Accursed, was born around 979. At baptism he was given the name Peter.

Svyatopolk is the son of Yaropolk Svyatoslavich, his mother Julia was a Greek nun. As the chronicle says, at one time Svyatoslav brought her as a captive and married her to Yaropolk.

The chronicler reports that after the murder of his brother Yaropolk, Prince Vladimir Svyatoslavich took his widow, who was already pregnant from Yaropolk, as his wife. Soon she gave birth to a son, Svyatopolk, whom Vladimir raised along with his children. Therefore, in some sources Svyatopolk is called the son of Yaropolk, in others - the son of Vladimir.

Around 988, Vladimir gave Svyatopolk an inheritance in Turov.

Around 1013, Svyatopolk married the daughter of the Polish prince Boleslav the Brave. Together with the young princess, her confessor, Bishop Rainburn, arrived in Turov, who obviously had the intention of tearing the Russian Church away from Constantinople and reassigning it to Rome.

Svyatopolk, dissatisfied with Vladimir and incited by his wife and bishop, began preparing an uprising against Prince Vladimir, enlisting the support of his father-in-law. But the plot was discovered, and Vladimir imprisoned Svyatopolk along with his wife and Rainburn.

Vladimir died in 1015 while preparing for a campaign against Novgorod against another rebellious son, Yaroslav. The prince did not have time to make any orders regarding the heir, and therefore Svyatopolk was released and took the throne without any difficulties.

In The Tale of Bygone Years, Svyatopolk is accused of organizing the murder of Boris and Gleb, who are canonized as innocent victims. First of all, Svyatopolk decided to deal with Vladimir’s favorite, the Rostov prince Boris, who had the grand ducal squad at his disposal. Svyatopolk sent faithful people to Boris. During matins, the murderers made their way to the prince’s tent and stabbed him with spears. The wounded but still alive Boris was brought to Svyatopolk, and there he was hacked to death with a sword. Then Svyatopolk sent messengers to Gleb of Murom, inviting him to visit his allegedly seriously ill father, whose death Gleb did not yet know. On the way, Gleb was attacked by assassins sent by Svyatopolk, and one of Gleb’s men, a cook named Torchin, stabbed his master to death on the orders of the villains. The third brother, Svyatoslav Drevlyansky, having learned about the death of Boris and Gleb, fled to Hungary, but on the way Svyatopolk’s people caught up with him and also killed him.

After the massacres of his relatives, Svyatopolk received the nickname “Cursed” from his contemporaries.

Having learned about the murder of the brothers, the Novgorod prince Yaroslav, with the support of the Varangians and Novgorodians, went to war against Svyatopolk in 1016. A power struggle began between Svyatopolk and Yaroslav. The troops met on the Dnieper at Listven. Yaroslav went on the attack, taking advantage of the moment when Svyatopolk and his squad were feasting. The troops of Svyatopolk the Accursed were defeated and thrown into the river. Yaroslav seized the throne in Kyiv.

Prince Svyatopolk fled to Poland and called for help from King Boleslav I the Brave, his father-in-law. In 1017, with the support of Pecheneg and Polish troops, they marched on Kyiv. The meeting of the squads took place on the Bug, Yaroslav was defeated and fled to Novgorod.

The Kyiv throne again began to belong to Svyatopolk. In order not to support the troops of his father-in-law Boleslav, who were stationed in Russian cities, he expelled the Poles. Together with Boleslav the Brave, most of the Kyiv boyars also left.

Meanwhile, with the money collected by the Novgorodians, Yaroslav hired a new army from the Varangians and went to Kyiv. Left without military strength, Svyatopolk fled to other allies - the Pechenegs. There he recruited a new army and moved to Rus'. In 1019, Yaroslav met him on the Alta River, not far from the place where Boris was killed. The Pecheneg army was defeated, and Svyatopolk himself was seriously wounded. He fled to Poland, then to the Czech Republic.

The chroniclers wrote: “...and his bones, having weakened, cannot turn grey, they do not lie down and are carried.” Abandoned by everyone, he died in 1019 on the road somewhere between Poland and the Czech Republic.